قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The age discrimination process against the HP device is reintroduced

The age discrimination process against the HP device is reintroduced



A federal appellate court on Wednesday overturned a lower court ruling in a lawsuit against age discrimination filed against a unit of Hewlett-Packard Co. and considered that a dismissed employee could continue with his litigation.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. hired Robert Sloat in 2011 to develop training programs for his salespeople, and over the next five years he received "particularly positive" reviews, according to the judgment of the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Robert Sloat v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. ]

His fortune began to change in October 2016 when he was transferred to another group, where at the age of 60 he was the oldest person to report to his new boss.

Among subsequent incidents, the chief told him, "You have old skills," and asked him on at least 1

0 occasions when he intended to retire, the verdict said. Knoxville, Tennessee, charged with age discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal law on age discrimination in employment and state law.

The district court granted Hewlett-Packard's summary judgment and dismissed the case. 19659002] One of Hewlett-Packard's answers to the alleged pension digging was that the boss's requests were "not frequent," the verdict said.

"That answer is inexplicable: one or two requests in the same line from one's boss can be dismissed as isolated; even more requests could form a pattern; but ten inquiries, a jury can easily find, are a campaign. "

The boss's pension inquiries" also support a conclusion that (the boss) engaged in a series of actions, driven by bias, whose intended effect was to drive Sloat out of the company ", it was stated in the judgment.

Mr. Sloat "has presented evidence from which a jury could reasonably find" that the boss "acted with the intent to get Sloat to resign," said the verdict, which also concluded that "much of the same" evidence supports his claim for retaliation.

The case was referred back for further processing.

Actors in the case did not respond to a request for comment.

Catalog


Source link